2006 Supreme(SC) 101

2006(2) Supreme 140
Supreme Court of India
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI., B.N. Srikrishna and R.V. Raveendran, JJ.
Sube Singh —Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana & Ors. —Respondents
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 237 of 1998
Decided on 3-2-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : S. Muralidhar, Advocate (A.C.).
For the Respondents : T.V. George, Ajay Siwach, Sandeep Sharma and Pradeep Dahiya, Advocates.

Important points
1. If police are to perform better, the public should support them, government should strengthen and equip them, and men in power should not interfere or belittle them.
2. Where there is no evidence of custodial torture of a person except his own statement, and where such allegation is not supported by any medical report or other corroboration evidence, or where there are clear indications that the allegations are false or exaggerated fully or in part, Courts may not award compensation as a public law remedy but relegate the aggrieved party to the traditional remedies by way of appropriate civil/criminal action.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India—Articles 21 and 32—An undated letter alleging illegal detention, custodial torture and harassment to family members—Allegations that some police officials came to house of petitioner to enquire about whereabouts of his son and took petitioner, his wife and two minor daughters forcibly to the police post—He was allegedly beaten with sticks on the way—Petitioner and his family allegedly were tortured when he stated that he was not aware of his son’s whereabouts—Petitioner alleged that his friends and relatives were not permitted to meet him, when he was being illegally detained—Petitioner sent an undated letter to the Supreme Court alleging illegal detention and police torture—On enquiry by the State, it was reported that allegations of petitioner relating to police torture, illegal detention, harassment to wife and daughters were not substantiated—Report confirmed that petitioner and his brother were called to the police station couple of times for interrogation regarding the whereabouts of petitioner’s son—Not being satisfied with this report, Supreme Court directed CBI to enquire into the matter—CBI concluded that some of the allegations of petitioner were substantiated—In pursuance to report of CBI, an FIR was lodged u/ss 323, 342, 343, 365 and 384 IPC against 10 police officials—Petitioner’s claim of awarding compensation to victims—Whether maintainable—(No)—Factors indicate that petitioner and his relatives have made false and exaggerated claims in regard to illegal detention, torture etc., apart from suppressing material facts.

       Held : It is thus now well settled that award of compensation against the State is an appropriate and effective remedy for redress of an established infringement of a fundamental right under Article 21, by a public servant. The quantum of compensation will, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Award of such compensation (by way of public law remedy) will not come in the way of the aggrieved person claiming additional compensation in a civil court, in enforcement of the private law remedy in tort, nor come in the way of the criminal court ordering compensation under section 357 of Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 17)

       Cases where violation of Article 21 involving custodial death or torture is established or is incontrovertible stand on a different footing when compared to cases where such violation is doubtful or not established. Where there is no independent evidence of custodial torture and where there is neither medical evidence about any injury or disability, resulting from custodial torture, nor any mark/scar, it may not be prudent to accept claims of human right violation, by persons having criminal records in a routine manner for awarding compensation. That may open the floodgates for false claims, either to mulct money from the State or as to prevent or thwart further investigation. Courts should, therefore, while jealously protecting the fundamental rights of those who are illegally detained or subjected to custodial violence, should also stand guard against false, motivated and frivolous claims in the interests of the society and to enable Police to discharge their duties fearlessly and effectively. While custodial torture is not infrequent, it should be borne in mind that every arrest and detention does not lead to custodial torture. (Para 20)

       In this case, there is no clear or incontrovertible evidence about custodial torture, nor any medical report of any injury or disability. The grievance of the petitioner and his relatives is against different officers in different Police Stations at different point of time. More importantly, several of the allegations are proved to be exaggerated and false. We, therefore, do not consider this to be a fit case for award of compensation. All reliefs which should be granted in such a case, have already been granted by ordering an inquiry by the CBI and ensuring that the Police Officers named are prosecuted. The law will have to take own course. This order will not come in the way of any civil court awarding compensation in an action in tort or the criminal court awarding compensation under section 357 CPC in the pending prosecution against any of the officers, if the charges are established. With the said observations, we dispose of this petition, as no further reliefs/directions are called for. (Paras 25 and 26)

       (ii) Constitution of India—Articles 21 and 32—Custodial torture or death —Award of compensation—Maintainability—Award of compensation as a public law remedy for violation of fundamental rights, in addition to private law remedy under Law of Torts—Whether, in addition to directing CBI inquiry and prosecution of officers concerned, compensation should be awarded to the victim.

       Held : In cases where custodial death or custodial torture or other violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 is established, courts may award compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 or 226. However, before awarding compensation, the Court will have to pose to itself the following questions : (a) Whether the violation of Article 21 is patent and incontrovertible, (b) whether the violation is gross and of a magnitude to shock the conscience of the court, (c) whether the custodial torture alleged has resulted in death or whether custodial torture is supported by medical report or visible marks or scars or disability. Where there is no evidence of custodial torture of a person except his own statement, and where such allegation is not supported by any medical report or other corroboration evidence, or where there are clear indications that the allegations are false or exaggerated fully or in part, courts may not award compensation as a public law remedy under Article 32 or 226, but relegate the aggrieved party to the traditional remedies by way of appropriate civil/criminal action. We should not, however, be understood as holding that harassment and custodial violence is not serious or worthy of consideration, where there is no medical report or visible marks or independent evidence. We are conscious of the fact that harassment or custodial violence cannot always be supported by a medical report or independent evidence or proved by marks or scars. Every illegal detention irrespective of its duration, and every custodial violence, irrespective of its degree or magnitude, is outright condemnable and per se actionable. Remedy for such violation is available in civil law and criminal law. The public law remedy is additionally available where the conditions mentioned in the earlier para are satisfied. We may also note that this Court has softened the degree of proof required in criminal prosecution relating to such matters. (Paras 21 and 22)

       Unfortunately, police in the country have given room for an impression in the minds of public, that whenever there is a crime, investigation usually means rounding up all persons concerned (say all servants in the event of a theft in the employer’s house, or all acquaintances of the deceased, in the event of a murder) and subjecting them to third-degree interrogation in the hope that someone will spill the beans. This impression may not be correct, but instances are not wanting where police have resorted to such a practice. Lack of training in scientific investigative methods, lack of modern equipment, lack of adequate personnel, and lack of a mindset respecting human rights, are generally the reasons for such illegal action. One other main reason is that the public (and men in power) expect results from police in too short a span of time, forgetting that methodical and scientific investigation is a time consuming and lengthy process. Police are branded as inefficient even when there is a short delay in catching the culprits in serious crimes. The expectation of quick results in high-profile or heinous crimes builds enormous pressure on the police to somehow ‘catch’ the ‘offender’. The need to have quick results tempts them to resort to third degree methods. They also tend to arrest “someone” in a hurry on the basis of incomplete investigation, just to ease the pressure. Time has come for an attitudinal change not only in the minds of the police, but also on the part of the public. Difficulties in criminal investigation and the time required for such investigation should be recognized, and police should be allowed to function methodically without interferences or unnecessary pressures. If police are to perform better, the public should support them, government should strengthen and equip them, and men in power should not interfere or belittle them. The three wings of the Government should encourage, insist and ensure thorough scientific investigation under proper legal procedures, followed by prompt and efficient prosecution. Be that as it may. (Para 23)

       (iii) Constitution of India—Articles 21 and 32—Custodial violence—Preventive measures—Efforts should be made to remove the very causes which lead to custodial violence—Endeavour should be to achieve a balanced level of functioning, where police respect human rights, adhere to law, and take confidence building measures.

       Held : Custodial violence requires to be tackled from two ends, that is, by taking measures that are remedial and preventive. Award of compensation is one of the remedial measures after the event. Effort should be made to remove the very causes, which lead to custodial violence, so as to prevent such occurrences. Following steps, if taken, may prove to be effective preventive measures :

       a) Police training should be re-oriented, to bring in a change in the mindset and attitude of the Police personnel in regard to investigations, so that they will recognize and respect human rights, and adopt thorough and scientific investigation methods.

       b) The functioning of lower level Police Officers should be continuously monitored and supervised by their superiors to prevent custodial violence and adherence to lawful standard methods of investigation.

       c) Compliance with the eleven requirements enumerated in D.K. Basu (supra) should be ensured in all cases of arrest and detention.

       d) Simple and fool-proof procedures should be introduced for prompt registration of first information reports relating to all crimes.

       e) Computerization, video-recording, and modern methods of records maintenance should be introduced to avoid manipulations, insertions, substitutions and ante-dating in regard to FIRs, Mahazars, inquest proceedings, Port-mortem Reports and Statements of witnesses etc. and to bring in transparency in action.

       f) An independent investigating agency (preferably the respective Human Rights Commissions or CBI) may be entrusted with adequate power, to investigate complaints of custodial violence against Police personnel and take stern and speedy action followed by prosecution, wherever necessary.

       The endeavour should be to achieve a balanced level of functioning, where police respect human rights, adhere to law, and take confidence building measures (CBMs), and at the same time, firmly deal with organized crime, terrorism, white-collared crime, deteriorating law and order situation etc. (Para 24)